No matter what else you think about the American Civil Liberties Union, you could always count on it to defend the right to speak out. So of course the debate over whether the ACLU’s board members should muzzle themselves has become a delightfully public squabble.
“A director may publicly disagree with an ACLU policy position, but may not criticize the ACLU board or staff,” reads a proposal drawn up by a committee named to help define the responsibilities of board members. A member who disagrees with a board decision “should refrain from publicly highlighting the fact of such disagreement.”
That doesn’t run afoul of the 1st Amendment. Your government can’t tell you to keep your mouth shut, though your boss can when what you’re saying reflects on your employer.
But isn’t this a strange position for the ACLU to be in? Why would it be so concerned that a little free discourse between ACLU board members might damage the organization?
Why would it want to muzzle its own people?
One hint is contained in the committee’s proposal, which reminds board members that such bickering could “affect the ACLU adversely in terms of public support and fundraising.” That would seem to suggest that the dollars are more important than the ideals.
Internal dynamics may be to blame. The standards committee was formed after the board rejected an attempt to oust two of its members who had spoken out about decisions they said were counter to ACLU principles. One was a grant agreement (later reversed) that required the group to check new hires against government terrorist watch lists; the other was a plan to scour information lists (Gasp! Data mining!) to recruit members.
More recently, some board members criticized the ACLU for endorsing legislation that would regulate advertising by pro-life counseling centers that claim to provide “abortion services” but actually try to talk women into continuing their pregnancies.
“That seems to me a very clear example of government being the language police,” board member Wendy Kaminer told the New York Sun.
Kaminer’s position would seem to go right to the CL in ACLU. But her remarks led to an ugly dust-up at an April board meeting.
There’s an irresistible irony in all this–the champions of free speech, debating a self-imposed gag order. It doesn’t seem likely to boost public support or fundraising if the ACLU assumes a new role … of language police.
